SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
uruguay
What We Can Learn From Uruguay on Earth Overshoot Day
Uruguay highlights the importance of political will and bold action in achieving sustainability and shows that it can go hand in hand with both economic security for the many and social justice.
Aug 02, 2023
August 2 is Earth Overshoot Day, when the planet groans, burdened by the greed of richer, overconsuming countries and people. According to the Global Footprint Network’s analysis, today marks the point when humanity starts consuming resources beyond the level the planet can replenish in a year.
Overshoot Day has arrived earlier and earlier over the past 50 years. Those of us in wealthier countries must take this as a reminder of our collective responsibility to live lives of greater sufficiency, and to choose governments who will reign in the corporations trampling Earth’s fragile ecosystems and pushing the planet beyond its limits.
Overshooting Is Not Inevitable
According to Global Footprint Network’s rankings, more than a quarter of countries in the world do not overshoot. However, the problem of reducing our ecological footprint is not that we do not have models of sustainable living—it is that most of these countries are characterized by poverty. The richer countries which have been burning fossil fuels to excess have not yet taken the challenging, yet completely doable steps, to live without them. Imagining new ways of living requires some sort of blueprint to guide us.
Uruguay—a Story of Political Will and Bold Action
One country that offers some ideas for moving forward is Uruguay: a small nation of rolling hills whose experience shows that reducing consumption of the Earth’s resources does not mean a lower standard of living. While there is no “one size fits all” template for sustainability, Uruguay shows that a country’s leaders can be intentional in reducing its ecological footprint.
Looking at its recent past, Uruguay highlights the importance of political will and bold action in achieving sustainability and shows that it can go hand in hand with both economic security for the many and social justice. Uruguay has one of the lowest levels of income inequality in Latin America and an almost complete absence of extreme poverty. The government has invested heavily in education, healthcare, a minimum wage indexed to inflation, and a progressive tax system that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor—all of which have helped to reduce poverty and inequality.
For Uruguay’s leaders, businesspeople, and workers, the green transition did not just represent a shift to renewables, it also signaled a shift in their own mindset.
This focus on social welfare has helped to create a more stable and resilient society, with its people less vulnerable to economic shocks and more likely to weather downturns. It’s no surprise that Uruguay is one of the happiest countries in Latin America, with a strong social safety net and a high standard of living.
Achieving Energy Independence
Uruguay reduced its dependence on fossil fuels by creating a renewable energy sector that makes it a world leader on this front. In 2008, Uruguay embarked on a countrywide transition to renewable power that today has created one of the world’s greenest electricity grids, powered by 98% renewable energy, mostly hydropower and wind. This commitment to clean energy has created new jobs and economic opportunities, as Uruguay has become a leader in renewable energy technology and exports.
Dangers of Backtracking
While Uruguay’s leaders have made some good choices over recent decades, not all of its government’s decisions are beyond reproach. Facing the worst water crisis in its history, drought compounded by mismanagement and uncontrolled growth of urban areas has reportedly resulted in the depletion of the main reserve that supplies the capital, Montevideo. Activists have also criticized the authorities for prioritizing water for transnationals and agribusiness at the expense of its own citizens, including plans for a Google data center that is projected to use millions of liters of water.
Also of deep concern are Uruguay’s plans to expand deepwater oil and gas exploration after recently discovering sizable new reserves off its shores. Uruguay now has its sights on expanding production and consumption via trade and is pushing for the destructive EU-Mercosur deal.
Prioritizing Well-being
We are at a crossroads in human history. Those of us living in countries that had an overshoot day long before today can indeed live well without such extreme overconsumption. We can push our governments to follow the example of countries like Uruguay and implement policies that prioritize collective well-being.
For Uruguay’s leaders, businesspeople, and workers, the green transition did not just represent a shift to renewables, it also signaled a shift in their own mindset. Rather than contemplate the paralyzing crises of the future, they could approach them as everyday problems with people-centered solutions. Let’s use these positive examples to get rid of Overshoot Day completely.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Political Democracies, Economic Dictatorships
Countries are held hostage by big capital that migrates from one country to another in a matter of hours, terrorizing populations with the threat of another economic crisis and forcing their rulers, democratic or not, to kneel before these feudal lords.
Mar 26, 2023
From France to Uruguay, not by chance, neoliberal governments have proposed a pension reform that adds years to the retirement age (two in France; up to five in Uruguay). The narrative that justifies raising the retirement age is twofold: (1) People live longer and, therefore, have to work more; (2) If these "necessary and painful reforms" are not carried out, the system will be defunded and the country will lose competitiveness in the world since other countries have applied these same measures, necessary for the financial class and painful for the productive classes. The same discourse, plus a third threat, has been repeated for decades in the United States: (3) Social Security (invented by "the communist president" Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression) is not sustainable, so we must raise the retirement age and, as far as possible, privatize it. It does not matter that it is and always has been self-sustaining. Social security is just that: insurance, not risky investments.
Privatization was first put into practice in peripheral countries. The destruction of Salvador Allende's socialist democracy 50 years ago and the imposition of the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship had the declared intention of preserving the freedom of capital and using this country as a laboratory for the neoliberal theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. The "Chilean Miracle" was noted for its social and economic crises, despite the tsunami of dollars from Washington and large corporations. The semi-private pension model was brought to Uruguay in 1996 and it only took 20 years for it to fail. The damn state should have come to the rescue of those harmed by investment geniuses.
All this could be solved with a more direct democracy system, something that many of us have been writing about for decades, especially with the new digital tools.
The difficulty that a single country, be it France or Uruguay, can resist this acceleration of the robbery of the working classes is due to the fact that these neoliberal policies have a global reach. Countries are held hostage by big capital that migrates from one country to another in a matter of hours, terrorizing populations with the threat of another economic crisis and forcing their rulers, democratic or not, to kneel before these feudal lords. On the other hand, the largest financial institutions in the world, such as the IMF and the World Bank, are allies of this mafia. The World Bank defines itself as a development bank, but its practice indicates the opposite: It is at the service of the benefits of capital, informing to the minute which countries are planning to vote on a law to protect their workers or to control banks with regulations. Thus, its partners and clients can protect their investments by transferring their millions from a sovereign country to a more friendly one, better placed in the ranking of "business freedom," another of those old functional fictions.
Since the 1980s, the productivity of workers in the United States and around the world has been steadily growing, while their wages have remained stagnant or have lost purchasing power. You don't have to be a genius to understand where this difference between productivity and salary went. But they want more.
Another tender explanation for legislating against the will of the people consists of the classic idea that it is not the unions that govern but the elected governments. But in France alone, 70% of the population is against the pension reform, and its "government elected by the people" refuses to listen. This deafness is classic and, in turn, is justified by another ideology: "The government must act responsibly, not demagoguery." Again: responsibility before the capital of harassment; demagogy for exercising democracy, giving the people their right to decide.
All this could be solved with a more direct democracy system, something that many of us have been writing about for decades, especially with the new digital tools. If the French could decide in regular referendums, the massive demonstrations and urban destruction that have been going on for weeks would not have occurred in France. But common citizens have no other effective tool than rebellion, in violent cases. Obviously, this idea of direct democracy is dangerous because it is an idea in favor of a real democracy.
As history shows, capitalism is by nature undemocratic. It has developed from the brutality and carnage in its colonies; it has been strengthened by slavery; it has been consolidated with the multiple military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Even lately, he has been more than comfortable with Chinese communism. When capitalism coexisted with liberal democracies, it was not because it was a democratic system but because it is a great manipulator, to the point of convincing half the world that democracy and capitalism are the same thing, since both are based on freedom. What he forgets to clarify is that democracy refers to the freedom of the people and capitalism understands it as the freedom of capital, that is, of the dictatorial elite that today not only owns most of the world's wealth but the control of the global financial system and the near monopoly of the dominant media.
The French have a long tradition of social protest, but they can also afford to riot in the streets since few will accuse them of being underdeveloped. Uruguayans, despite their long tradition of democratic institutions such as education, health, and individual rights, are much timider in their claims. Its oligarchy, like all of them, also has a long tradition of stigmatizing the advances of real democracy, accusing any popular demand of being communist (a recipe inoculated by the CIA in the 1950s and which survives 30 years after the Cold War) at the same time. They do it in the name of democracy and freedom.
The (re)solution for France is not easy in an international context kidnapped by the masters of capital who demand and even convince their slaves to work more years for the same ration and, moreover, to do so of their own free will. For Uruguay, due to its context and its size, it is more than difficult. But in both cases, if resistance to economic dictate succeeds, they could set themselves up as dangerous examples.
For these reasons, the only long-term solution is the union of a new current of Non-Aligned Countries or those associated by common interests (cultural and economic) such as Latin America, for example.
But of course, we all know that the centennial solution of imperial capitalism has been the disunity, demobilization, and demoralization of the colonies and their own workers. So long as this ideological inoculation that today, in the former colonies, nationalist movements are on the rise. With one detail: they are not the anti-colonialist nationalism of the 1960s in Africa, for example, but a sepoy and parasitic reflection of imperial nationalism in their own colonies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brazil's New Lula Government Is an Opportunity for a New Trade Model
This is a historical moment that calls for renewed policies based on scaling up democracy in a profoundly participatory way.
Feb 17, 2023
Change is afoot in Latin America. The region—battered by COVID, inequality and environmental crisis—is seeing a second wave of progressive governments elected, most significantly with the recent victory of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil. This is a unique opportunity for us to build a new trade model that puts people and the planet first. Stopping the harmful EU-Mercosur trade deal is a good place to start.
Now Brazil is back, the priority is people over profit
In his election victory speech Lula outlined some of the government’s priorities. The focus was on fighting hunger and poverty, while also repositioning Brazil as a major player in regional and international affairs. Lula committed to re-negotiating the EU-Mercosur trade deal. He stated, “Brazil is back. We are back to help build a peaceful world order based on dialogue and multilateralism.” This will give a much needed boost to global human rights, climate action and diplomacy that have been under threat from the rising far right.
Initiatives from Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Colombia indicate that the region as a whole is keen to discuss regional integration as well as the strategic economic and political foundations on which to base our relationship with the world.
Timing is everything. The world’s vulnerabilities have been laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic and further heightened by the impact of the war in Europe. A war which is now taking place in key countries for the supply of energy and raw materials for the agro-industry. This alone should inspire an interrogation of international economic relations and the dominance of transnational corporations in determining trade and investment flows and national production patterns.
This is a unique opportunity for us to build a new trade model that puts people and the planet first. Stopping the harmful EU-Mercosur trade deal is a good place to start.
While some politicians are trying to use Lula’s election as a reason to accelerate the ratification of the deal, Friends of the Earth International and our allies around the world know that now is the time to prioritise social needs, such as access to medicines, healthy food and the environment. It is time to confront the obsolete, neo-colonial and neo-liberal trade model, driven by the supply and market demands of European companies.
The winners and losers in the harmful EU-Mercosur trade deal
The EU-Mercosur deal is a powerful symbol of the failed old trade model. In negotiation for over 20 years between Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay—known collectively as Mercosur—and the European Union, the trade agreement is beset by disagreements from both regions. It contradicts many progressive governments’ policies and election mandates. It would restrict reindustrialisation policies, undermine public procurement and open up the free trade in harmful products, thereby accelerating deforestation, climate change and human rights violations.
The treaty liberalises trade tariffs, which will affect over 90% of the Mercosur goods portfolio. The London Schools of Economics sustainability impact assessment sees the beef, soya, derivatives, paper and beverages sectors as Mercosur’s economic winners and the vehicle, chemical, pharmaceutical and industrial sectors as the losers. Mercosur exports of ethanol from sugarcane production will also increase considerably. In Brazil the ethanol sector relies on huge concentrations of land, intensive agrochemicals and poor working conditions. This colonial legacy severely impacts the biomes and Indigenous Peoples of Mata Atlantica, Cerrado and Pantanal biomes. The trade deal also looks set to impact negatively on Uruguay’s dairy and beverage sectors.
Far from resolving environmental concerns, this agreement will herald further expansion of the agricultural and extractive sectors, such as the energy mining sector, with inevitable impacts on deforestation, land grabbing, biodiversity, water, and food quality.
It would also scupper the chance for Mercosur countries to develop public policies to value-added manufacturing and increase economic diversity, a particular problem for the newly elected Brazilian government. The EU has ruled out protection clauses for developing industrial sectors and the transfer of technology in investments. The agreement would open up state procurement, depriving countries of an important social and industrial promotion policy, thereby providing highly competitive EU companies with an extremely attractive market.
Far from resolving environmental concerns, this agreement will herald further expansion of the agricultural and extractive sectors, such as the energy mining sector, with inevitable impacts on deforestation, land grabbing, biodiversity, water, and food quality. This in turn results in increased violence against and displacement of the collective rights of communities. According to the report prepared by the Left in the European Parliament (GUE), trade with the European Union is directly linked to 120,000 hectares of deforestation in Mercosur countries. That is one soccer field of deforestation every three minutes.
The EU-Mercosur deal expands the private protection of intellectual property—increasing the protection provided for by WTO obligations. This will likely push up the cost of medicines while undermining technology transfer. The corporate-friendly text on the patenting of seeds and plant varieties reduces farmers’ rights to seeds and undermines food sovereignty.
A new trade model based on democracy and justice
Lula has repeatedly committed to reopening EU-Mercosur negotiations and is urging cohesion within the Mercosur block, in the face of threats by Uruguay to go their own way on trade policy. On the EU's side some are racing to conclude the agreement as quickly as possible, while other governments want the deal stalled. Yet the new Brazilian government's victory must set the scene for an in-depth evaluation of the treaty’s impacts, not just a whitewashing of some of its more delicate elements. The new balance of power within Mercosur underscores the need for profound changes, even in elements that form the backbone of the agreement, such as the space for industrial policy in the region. Lula is calling for renegotiation because the treaty does not respect Brazil's development needs.
The EU’s proposal to improve the deal through a new protocol or environmental annex and other false solutions does not address the core unsustainability of the agreement. An example of a real solution would be to end the export of European pesticide agro-toxins (produced mainly by BASF and Bayer-Monsanto). Ironically these pesticides - a key part of the agribusiness global chain - are banned from use in Europe, but are exported for use in Mercosur countries' agricultural sectors, the produce of which is then exported to the EU.
New progressive governments provide an opportunity for the Mercosur region to broadly discuss some of the treaty's components that may have more harmful impacts on our development from a social and environmental justice perspective. It also provides us with the opportunity to discuss the trade models needed today for the region’s peoples and countries.
The challenges we face are enormous. This is a historical moment that calls for renewed policies based on scaling up democracy in a profoundly participatory way. This applies to the ways in which the countries of Latin America—which remain the most unequal in the world—integrate and build a common political space. Failed free trade agreements and corporate power have no place in the transformation of society. Justice and democracy must sit at the heart of politics.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular